andrewcriddle

stephan huller has drawn in previous threads to the puzzling passage in Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies Book V11 dealing with Marcion. There are several problems here. Why does Hippolytus refer to Mark (and Mark's Gospel) along with Paul when discussing Marcion ? Marcion is generally supposed to have used versions of Paul's epistles and Luke's Gospel not Mark's Gospel. Why is Mark referred to as he of the maimed finger hO KOLOBODAKTULOS ? (what does the term mean and why on earth is it relevant in this context ?)

These issues may be connected. (What follows is based largely on an article by Tregelles and an article by J L North in JTS 28 (1977) pps 498-507.) Hippolytus does not explicitly say that Marcion used a version of Mark as his authoritative gospel, and without our knowledge from other sources of Marcion's views I don't think we would interpret the passage this way. (After all Hippolytus is not saying that Marcion's views are found in Mark and Paul, rather that they are not). Hippolytus seems to be saying that there is no support for Marcion's views anywhere in the early church, not (at one extreme) in Paul the apostle, nor (at the other extreme) in Mark of the maimed finger.

But how does hO KOLOBODAKTULOS make sense as a contrast to hO APOSTOLOS ? This tradition about Mark is developed in later sources so that Mark was lacking a finger or thumb, either congenitally or (more frequently) by self-mutilation. However the literal lacking of a finger or thumb makes little sense as a contrast to apostle. hO KOLOBODAKTULOS is probably a translation into Greek of the Latin murcus literally stunted docked mutilated but used as a colloquial term for those who cut off their thumbs to avoid conscription in the Roman army, (see Amnianus Marcellinus), hence shirker malingerer deserter. Now from Acts 13:13 we know that John Mark deserted Paul and Barnabas during Paul's 1st missionary journey. Hence among early Latin-speaking Christians one could make the pun that John Mark should be called murcus not marcus.

If this is right, then Hippolytus is saying that there is no support for Marcion's views anywhere in the early church, not (at one extreme) in Paul the apostle, nor (at the other extreme) in Mark the deserter. IE Hippolytus is not suggesting that Marcion used Mark as his preferred gospel.

This explanation (if correct) is of interest in providing evidence of the very early identification of John Mark in Acts with Mark the gospel author.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
We know:

1) Relative to each other, Marcion and the orthodox, Marcion had the original letters of Paul, and it was the orthodox that Reacted to Marcion's collection.

2) "Mark" wrote the original Gospel narrative.

3) The first attributed user of any Gospel by the orthodox is Marcion.

4) The orthodox confess that Marcion was the first to have a Canon.

The simple explanation from Hippolytus above is that for the time he is describing for Marcion orthodox "Luke" did not exist. This is consistent with the External and Internal evidence. Othodox "Luke" looks to be after Marcion, 1st 3rd of second century and before Justin, mid second century.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

andrewcriddle

The problem is that Irenaeus believed that Marcion used (a version of) Luke and Hippolytus knew Irenaeus' Against Heresies. IE whether or not Marcion really used Luke, Hippolytus probably believed he did.

Andrew Criddle

IMO Marcion did use a version of Luke, but the issue is what Hippolytus believed, not whether his belief was right or wrong.

DCHindley

Andrew,

The interpretation "Mark the deserter" makes it sound as if Hippolytus is speaking of this Mark disdainfully, not in support of the fact that he, along with Paul, does not support Marcion's dualism. FWIW, Bar Kochba is said to have put 200,000 men on the field who had amputated fingers.* The numbers are of course exaggerated, and the phrases "amputated finger" and "uproot a Cedar of Lebanon" may be figurative. What we do know is that Bar Kochba was highly suspicious of treachery. He even kicked to death his own High Priestly compatriot Eliezar just for the suspicion of treachery.** To amputate a finger would have disqualified his soldiers from attempting to assume the High Priesthood, or perhaps of becoming a Prince in his place.

Is there any tradition that a Mark figure had dealings with Bar Kochba?

I wonder if this "Mark of the mutilated finger" is not actually a reference to Aquila of Sinope, a native of Pontus, a Jewish convert who translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek in a very literal manner sometime before the Bar Kochba revolt, and who was an associate of Rabbi Akiba, a Bar Kochba supporter. In other words "Neither the apostle Paul nor the super literal Greek translation of the OT support his dualism." Then the works of Mark of the mutilated finger would be different than the gospel of Mark, mentioned a sentence later.

This would mean, though, that Hippolytus would have been aware that Mark's Gospel preceded Luke, but I always thought the fathers universally thought Matthew was first as it lead the four gospels in order in the gospel mss. The whole matter is terribly confused.

DCH


*Midrash Rabbah Lamentations 2.2§4

Eighty thousand trumpeters besieged Bethar where Bar Kozeba was located, who had with him two hundred thousand men with an amputated finger.

The Sages sent him the message, 'How long will you continue to make the men of Israel blemished?'

He asked them, 'How else shall they be tested?'

They answered, 'Let anyone who cannot uproot a cedar from Lebanon (see Ezekiel 17, where this is a metaphor for the Davidic line) be refused enrollment in your army.'

He thereupon had two hundred thousand men of each class; and when they went forth to battle they cried, 'O God, neither help nor discourage us!'

That is what is written, Hast not Thou, o God, cast us off? And go not forth, o God, with our hosts?

And what used Bar Kozeba to do? He would catch the missiles from the enemy's catapults on one of his knees and hurl them back, killing many of the foe. On that account, Rabbi Aqiba made his remark.

**Midrash Rabbah Lamentations 2.2§4

For three and a half years the emperor Hadrian surrounded Bethar. In the city was rabbi Eleazar of Mode'in, who continually wore sackcloth and fasted, and used to pray daily: 'Lord of the universe, sit not in judgment today!' so that Hadrian thought of returning home.

A Cuthean went [to the emperor] and found him and said: 'My lord, so long as that old cock wallows in ashes, you will not conquer the city. But wait for me, because I will do something that will enable you to subdue it to-day.'

He immediately entered the gate of the city, where he found rabbi Eleazar standing and praying. He pretended to whisper in the ear of rabbi Eleazar of Mode'in. People went and informed Bar Kozeba: 'Your friend, rabbi Eleazar, wishes to surrender the city to Hadrian.'

He sent and had the Cuthean brought to him and asked: 'What did you say to him?'

He replied: 'If I tell you, the emperor will kill me; and if I do not tell you, you will kill me. It is better that I should kill myself and the secrets of the government be not divulged.'

Bar Kozeba was convinced that rabbi Eleazar wanted to surrender the city, so when the latter finished his praying, he had him brought into his presence and asked him: 'What did the Cuthean tell you?'

He answered: 'I do not know what he whispered in my ear, nor did I hear anything, because I was standing in prayer and am unaware what he said.'

Bar Kozeba flew into a rage, kicked him with his foot and killed him. A heavenly voice issued forth and proclaimed: 'Woe to the worthless shepherd that leaveth the flock! The sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right arm!'

It was intimated to him, 'Thou hast paralyzed the arm of Israel and blinded their right eye; therefore shall thy arm wither and thy right arm grow dim!'

Both citations come from Livius.org

stephan huller

Hi Andrew

For me at least the question of the statement in the Philosophumena can only be explained by the fact that the author knows of someone or a group of people who claim that the gospel of Mark is the gospel of Marcion

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark.

The argument doesn't make sense any other way. Why reference Mark into the discussion?

It's been many, many years since I read this article http://www.jstor.org/pss/3267115 but Williams notes that many of the objections to the Marcionite readings in Tertullian fall to the wayside when you compare them against known western readings of Mark.

Williams also questions why the author of the original material behind Tertullian's Against Marcion Book Four claims that Marcion erased things from Luke which don't appear in Luke. My answer is that:

1. Book 4 and 5 were written by the same author
2. The curious ordering of the Apostlikon IS NOT a reflection of the Marcionite canon but rather that of the original author of the material. Galatians primacy is found in references of Ephrem to his canon.
3. Thus, if the order of the Apostolikon is reflective of a second century Syrian text then the argument that Marcion (or the Marcionites) removed things from 'my gospel' (i.e. the argument laid out by the original author) is again indicative of the Eastern NT canon which used a Diatessaron at the time.

This helps explain why the author tends to speak in the singular about 'the gospel.' Also 'my gospel vs. Marcion's gospel' etc.

A good guess for the origins of Book 4 and 5 is Rhodo referenced in Eusebius, a disciple of Tatian.

This historical situation also helps explain why other gospels aren't generally brought in to explain some of the minor textual variants - i.e. 'Lord even of the Sabbath' (from memory) etc.

Also Tertullian's reference that the Marcion's denied that their gospel was 'according to Paul' is very significant as well. The basic paradigm is that the same apostle wrote BOTH the gospel and Apostolikon. But we project a division of 'the gospel of Luke' and the 'the epistles of Paul.' All Tertullian says is that they ascribe their gospel as if it were 'according to the Lord.' This sounds remarkably similar to the discussion in Dialogues of Adamantius where the Marcionite also goes out of his way to:

1. deny a claim that Peter wrote their gospel
2. deny that any of the other disciples of Jesus wrote a gospel
3. consistently infers that the apostle ('Paul') was present during the ministry of Jesus

The Peter reference is clearly a reaction to the Catholic story about Mark as the interpreter of Peter. We don't know enough about the Marcionite understanding of the person of the apostle other than their consistent emphasis of rendering 'apostle' in the singular ho apostolos sounds vaguely messianic. It is a Samaritan title of Moses - i.e. the spokesman of God.

The Marcionite emphasis that the gospel had no human author seems to anticipate Islamic understandings about the Koran and seems to develop from Mark 1:1. Also Origen's claim that Marcion and Paul end up enthroned to the right (and left) of Christ must have a gospel source. The only gospel that mentions an enthronement is Mark.

Now we should be careful about thinking about Marcion in terms of our canonical gospel of Mark. The consistent idea represented in Tertullian is that of Marcion as an ammender of the gospel. Whatever the original gospel looked like Marcion 'added' things to it.

While Irenaeus introduces Luke as the gospel ammended by Marcion Philosophumena (perhaps drawing from an earlier copy of the writings of Irenaeus - i.e. not all of Irenaeus's original material makes its way into the Philosophumena) knows ammended text to be that of Mark.

When we start talking about adding things to Mark it is hard not to think of Secret Mark.

Now with regards to the claim of Mark mutilating his thumb you may be right in identifying this with deserting from military service. It might also have something to do with a contemporary restriction on mutilated priests from serving in the Church. Marcion is described not only as a mutilator of the gospel but a mulitator of his flesh (from a common Syriac term that means both).

The idea that the Marcionite priesthood was castrated is also referenced in Tertullian. One might even speculate that the development of military oaths during baptism (sacramentum) is the underlying context. Look at Dionysius's reference to an Alexandrian that doesn't want to undergo a second (Roman) baptism. Dionysius's reasoning is strange and implies there is something more lying under the text.

Also the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism and Irenaeus' references to the Marcosian sect (which Schaff and many others have noted have uncanny parallels with Clement of Alexandria's writings) also introduce the idea of contemporary Rome imposing military style oaths on the heresies. This might be the underlying context.

The reference to Mark's desertion can be argued to have been introduced by Irenaeus in order to make Luke (rather than John Mark) as the beloved disciple of Paul. I made reference to this in another thread. When Irenaeus argues that this is in Acts his audience (Valentinians?) don't seem to be aware fo the reference. The 'we' section follows unnaturally from there.

Two more things:

1. Eznik and Irenaeus seem to infer that the Marcionites claimed that it was Marcion who witnessed the 'unspeakable revelation' (2 Cor 12:2). The fact that even the Catholic recension of this material vaguely retains the idea that 'a man' heard them (not necessarily Paul) may be reflective of Marcionite primacy here. I think the Marcionites were explicit about a revelation TO MARCION (or Mark). It was the only thing about their secret tradition that was openly referenced.

The Catholic invention of a separate guy named 'Pau' (which might have been a title originally of the same apostle now developed into a proper name).

On the ambiguity of Marcion's role in the tradition see Clement's claims that Marcion was the oldest heretic, his conversion dating from the time of Simon's hearing the preaching of Peter. Sounds Markan. Also this statement in Tertullian:



No one censures things before they exist, when he knows not whether they will come to pass. Emendation never precedes the fault. To be sure, an amender of that Gospel, which had been all topsy-turvy from the days of Tiberius to those of Antoninus, first presented himself in Marcion alone--so long looked for by Christ, who was all along regretting that he had been in so great a hurry to send out his apostles without the support of Marcion! But for all that, heresy, which is for ever mending the Gospels, and corrupting them in the act, is an affair of man's audacity, not of God's authority; and if Marcion be even a disciple, he is yet not "above his master;" if Marcion be an apostle, still as Paul says, "Whether it be I or they, so we preach;" if Marcion be a prophet, even "the spirits of the prophets will be subject to the prophets," for they are not the authors of confusion, but of peace; or if Marcion be actually an angel, he must rather be designated "as anathema than as a preacher of the gospel," because it is a strange gospel which he has preached. So that, whilst he amends, he only confirms both positions: both that our Gospel is the prior one, for he amends that which he has previously fallen in with; and that that is the later one, which, by putting it together out of the emendations of ours, he has made his own Gospel, and a novel one too. [AM 4.4]

stephan huller

Another point:

The Muratorian canon's mention of the Epistle to the Alexandrians in the Marcionite canon. Obvious connection with a Markan genre.

One more bit of speculation.

If we assume (as I do) that Irenaeus added the desertion of John Mark in order to introduce Luke then it is hard not to see that the underlying purpose is anti-Marcionite (just read AH 3.14 - 16). My belief is that the original Acts of the Apostles used by Polycarp just mentioned John Mark as the faithful disciple of BOTH Peter and Paul. No desertion of John Mark and no 'we' passages.

What was in their place?

Well it is strange how everyone was in agreement that:

1. Peter and Paul went to Rome and founded the Church
2. Mark wrote the gospel for Peter at Rome.

Could the original ending of the pre-Irenaean Acts of the Apostles ended with John Mark as a witness to the founding of the Church? Just a thought but it would reconcile a number of things.

It is strange the way Acts just 'ends' without any real conclusion

aa5874

ERROR

stephan huller

Finally something sensible from AA

aa5874

There is ZERO mention of gLuke being used by Marcion in "Refutation of All Heresies". Hippolytus did not state anywhere that he believed Marcion used gLuke.

It is CLEAR as day that it is claimed Marcion used Empedocles.

"Refutation of All Heresies" 7.17 So Marcion's doctrine was from Empedocles and further gLuke contains a BIRTH narrative which is NOT needed for Marcion's Son of God.

It is gMark that does not have a birth narrative. Marcion's Son of God supposedly came directly from some kind of heaven.

But, neither gMark or gLuke propagate the doctrine of DUALISM.

Marcion did not NEED gLuke or gMark.